November 17, 2011 - Santa Cruz - Since early October, Occupy Santa Cruz has been urging people and institutions to move their money out of big banks as a protest against financial inequity. This week the County of Santa Cruz announced that it had severed ties with Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase for their role in the global financial crisis. Earlier this month, activists inside and outside the local occupation promoted Bank Transfer Day in which tens of thousands of customers moved as much as $4.5 billion into local credit unions. Since October, Occupy Santa Cruz has taken part in numerous protests and marches against local branches of the major banks.

"There seems to be no limit to the greed of some of our nation's largest banks," said Fred Keeley, county Treasurer-Tax Collector. Three of the nation's largest banks were subject to fraud allegations and settlements in the municipal bid-rigging scandal. The five biggest banks in the country -- Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs. -- received bailouts from US taxpayers while being largely responsible for a mortgage crisis that toppled the American economy.

"Every day we see more locals investing in their community by moving their money into credit unions," said Jay Campbell, a member of Occupy Santa Cruz. "In a meeting this week Vice Mayor Don Lane said he would reintroduce this issue to the City Council. I would love to see those City accounts helping Santa Cruz businesses and prospective homeowners instead of getting wrapping into some big bank's Credit Default Swap."

Occupy Santa Cruz has gathered 24 hours a day everyday since October 6th currently occupying the county courthouse steps on Water Street. Occupy Santa Cruz is part of the worldwide Occupy Movement.

Occupy Santa Cruz General Assemblies are held daily at 6pm, and on Sundays at 2pm at the county courthouse steps.

Celebrate the divestment from the big banks; it's definitely a good thing.

But please, stop the twisting of the story and editing of words that make it appear that Occupy was causal effect. That manipulation of the media is one of the things I understand Occupy to be against. Not to mention Indy. If not? Correct my confusion.

Because what Keeley actually said, in addition to this posters cut and paste edited version that appears to want to give credit to Occupy for having achieved this action is:

"Keeley acknowledges his new neighbors’ presence on the courthouse steps. But says it didn’t factor into him into his new perspective on the two banks' bad decisions. “I’d be making this same decision whether or not there was an occupy movement," he says. "But I understand why there’s a movement when I see this happening.”

So please, revel in the mutual victory, but keep it real and don't imply that Occupy played a role in the action. Fred has been a straight shooter for decades in our community, so I have no reason to doubt the validity of his statement. Don't take or imply credit where it isn't due; that's the tactic of the 1%.